Part of our mission on the Beauty Brains is teaching people to think and analyze things using
the scientific method. We don’t expect you to become scientists, but you’ll make better buying decisions, save money and find products that really work if you think like one. With that goal in mind, we are starting a series of posts called the Beauty Brains Basic Beliefs. This series will demonstrate differences between solid scientific thinking and unproven “woo” that leads people astray.
Infallible Logic?
First up is a common example from one of our most commented on posts “Is Pantene Good or Bad for my Hair?” One community member says the following:
I just got my hair cut this week and while my stylist was using the razor on my hair tons of white stuff was coming off at the same time. Seeing as I don’t use any other product in my hair besides my Pantene shampoo and conditioner, it is clear that they are the cause. I’m sorry but it seems like you are just trying to make excuses for these bargain brands.
Taken at face value, this writer makes logical sense.
There is “white stuff” coming off her hair.
She only puts Pantene in her hair.
Ergo, Pantene is responsible for the “white stuff”.
Thinking Problem
Unfortunately, her comments suffer from a common thinking problem that makes her conclusion dubious.
Problem. Limiting your ideas.
The mistake of coming up with one explanation without considering others is common. In this case, the author assumes the residue could only be from her Pantene products. That’s certainly a possibility but there are others. For example,
a. It’s protein flakes from the hair
b. It’s residue from a styling product
c. It’s build-up from pollution in your environment
d. It’s dandruff from the scalp
e. It’s something else we haven’t considered
The observations she’s made are not adequate to determine that Pantene is responsible. It could be, but we’d need to learn more about the composition of the white flakes. If they turn out to be 100% protein, Pantene is obviously not the most likely culprit. Only eliminate possible explanations when data shows them to be wrong. And don’t assume you know the answer without testing it.
Solution. Consider multiple explanations & prove them wrong before rejecting.
Beauty Brains Bottom Line
The cause of the author’s white flakes remains a mystery but her Pantene hypothesis is not likely. Based on what we know about hair products and the salon business, it is more likely hair protein. The fact that both she and her stylist logically conclude Pantene is the cause doesn’t mean it’s true.
Loading ...
Dreniva Says:
Hooray Beautybrains, thanks for this informative article and also thanks for your mission to continuing educating us conaumers about cosmetics. But I have a lot of questions that needs to be answer but your e-mail doesn’t responds, why, I understand if your busy but I’ll wait for the answers. TIA.
Denise Says:
Ihave this white flake too… when I accidently spray too much hairspray in one spot. Never from Pantene. If she doesn’t use styling products maybe the conditioner isn’t getting rinsed out completely and is drying on her hair, thus the white flakes? Hmm… Thanks for the great site ladies, keep up the good work!
Mombu.com Says:
The Beauty Brains:
We found the information you post really useful, and we decided to make a review about it in our website.
You can check it out at :
Here
Our score is : 9.0
Janis Says:
I remember one woman on a long hair care board I used to frequent saying the same thing — that the stylist took a razor blade and scraped at her daughter’s hair and she could “actually see the buildup” that was scraped off.
Assuming of course, that that “buildup” wasn’t simply the cuticle of her daughter’s hair that the stylist was scraping away and telling her it was Pantene residue. I mean, do people not think? If you scrape at someone’s hair with a razor, it’s GOING to scrape SOMETHING off no matter what.
I applaud you guys being so tenacious in your efforts, because I just ended up giving up. So you think Pantene causes world hungeR? fine, if you want to spend $50 on a bottle of stuff that doesn’t work as well, it’s your money …
Jessica Says:
I hope that it really is protein, but I know I don’t use Pantene anymore because of hearing something similar. I don’t mind the shampoo but my stylist cut my mom’s hair and saw the same thing and without hesitating asked if she used Pantene and sure enough, she did. She said Pantene more than other brands can leave behind a waxy buildup in your hair. She named the chemical in the ingredients, but I don’t know if off the top of my head. I wouldn’t be surprised either way though.
Janis Says:
I don’t know — it seems to me that most people use Pantene, and if your mom used something like Garnier or Tresemme, the stylist would have gotten a negative answer and then gone on to say, ” … how about Suave? Garnier?” And when your mom answered, “Yes, I use Garnier,” the stylist would jsut have nodded and said, “I knew it.” And your mom would have then said that the stylist could just tell that she used that.
It’s like going to a “psychic.” They may not even realize they’re doing it, but they’re fishing around for information. “I sense a loss in your past … your … father?” No response. “Mother … ?” Another headshake. “Hm … ” and then they keep up the fishing until they arrive at the fact that the person’s parents came over for diner the night before and they lost their car keys. “Yes yes, parents and loss, that’s what I sensed.” And then the customer goes home and tells everyone how accurate the psychic was.
This is why you need thigsn like double-blind studies and chemical tests and microscopes, because people are good at being fooled and fooling themselves. Then, you just take the “white flakes,” test them, and see what they’re made out of.
I mean, how can people imagine that “white flakes” if oyur hair are so extraordinary and strange that they need convoluted explanations? It’s just dandruff. Dead skin that wasn’t exfoliated sufficiently. *shrug*
sophie Says:
Just wanted to say to Denise that I get those white flakes from hairspray as well. It’s the hairspray flaking off into white bits when you run your fingers through or the wind or something else moves your hair and splits the hairspray.
Anyways, I just wanted to say that there’s only one hairspray that I’ve found that doesn’t have the flakes problem, which is Aussie hairspray. No matter how much I use or how much I muss it up, it doesn’t flake! I’ve only used Aussie’s “sprunch” hair spray, but I’d assume the same applies to the other types as well.
I’ve never tried it, but I’ve also heard that’s L’Oreal Professional Textureline hair spray doesn’t flake either…but it’s it’s also $18.
anactoria Says:
You can lead people to truth, but you can’t make them drink it! They’ll tell you it’s bad for you and causes dandruff. The lies taste good. And confer higher status somehow.
But, yay for science! This is my most favourite post yet. And it’s going to be a /series/? This is awesome. The world needs more critical thinking and teaching people to be rational is never a bad thing. (Save for when you encounter the rational-deficient)
If people stop falling for the lies, they’ll stop selling them. They only sell what we want…
Janis Says:
I think people also like to make things complex sometimes. The fact that we’ve pretty much got a lot of the chesmitry down to the point where we can tell you exactly what four ingredients will help your hair and sell them to you for $5 simplifies things too much. People lke the idea of there being arcane rituals that only they know.
I think people also like to think of their hair as so special, unique, and different from the common herd that they need super-arcane expensive stuff. That’s not to say that there aren’t difference in how different hair textures behave and should be treated and styled, and some people have more or less oil or dandruff or whatnot. But it really is generally not that complex, and people seem bothered by that sometimes. They like to think that what works for the common ordinary “everybody else” just won’t do for them and their special-snowflake hair.
Even texture differences have to do more with handling and styling than product. *shrug*
Rosa Says:
Beauty Brains, I love your site but I’m going to have to disagree with you (at least partly) on this one.
a. It’s protein flakes from the hair: okay, if this hadn’t happened before when the stylist cut her hair in the same way, then maybe it isn’t protein flakes from the hair? She didn’t mention it, but maybe that’s what’s going on. You seem to be taking the short version of her statement and drawing conclusions–why don’t we ask this girl if the incidence of the flakes had started occurring after she switched to Pantene and stopped when she stopped using it? IF this is the case, I’d say this could be logical and good proof in this sort of case, since normal people don’t have access to ways to determine composition of the flakes.
b. It’s residue from a styling product: The girl specifically stated “I don’t use any other product in my hair”. I’m assuming that includes other hair products since ‘products’ usually refers to anything used in hair. Therefore, it cannot be from styling products since she doesn’t use them.
c. It’s build-up from pollution in your environment: unless she’s moved recently, she shouldn’t suddenly be seeing these flakes? Even if it’s something seasonal, most pollution I think stays fairly constant throughout the year so she would’ve probably noticed vast amounts of flaking before.
d. It’s dandruff from the scalp: Unless she was getting her head shaved, I can’t see how “tons” of the white stuff would be flying out of her hair when it was being cut if it was dandruff. And if her dandruff was this severe, I’m assuming she would’ve noticed the flakes before.
e. It’s something else we haven’t considered: Maybe, but there are millions of different things that we could hypothesize. The simplest, based on what you quoted in this post, is that the shampoo for whatever reason is related to the flakes. Maybe she isn’t rinsing properly or the conditioner is building up in her hair, but these are still causes related to Pantene.
WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION, I don’t see how you can so easily dismiss her logic here. Maybe you’re right, maybe she’s right. Probably she didn’t provide sufficient information in her comment, but she probably wasn’t planning on being ripped apart by a post. In any case, I don’t see how you can bash the logic of a reader of your blog without digging for more information, although your website is based on digging for more information instead of taking things at face value. I don’t know who’s right or wrong for sure, but this does seem like a good way to offend readers who care enough to comment on your blog.
Jessica Says:
LOVE this post, Brains. In response to the comment in the post “it seems like you are just trying to make excuses for bargain brands” doesn’t make much sense IMO. Even if the Brains WERE trying to ‘make excuses’ they don’t need to. P&G is a huge company and puts a lot into what they formulate. They use ingredients that work, and many of those ingredients can be found in high end shampoos.
For example, I’m currently using Herbal Essences Long Term Relationship. I’m assuming (based on the knowledge I’ve gained from the Brains) it’s the polyquats and silicones that are making my hair silky smooth and frizz free. Now, I also love using a Phyto hydrating shampoo that leaves my hair feeling the same. Funny that it also contains polyquats and silicones, no? And I know that chammomile in there isn’t doing it for my hair, so why pay SO much for somehting like Phyto when Herbal Essences/Pantene is a fraction of the cost?
Back to this post, I really think it was the scraping of hair proteins falling off. Whenever I’ve seen the whole “cheap products cause buildup that makes your hair suck” demos on shopping channels, they ALWAYS use a sharp tool like a scissor blade or razor blade to scrape the hair. I just did it yesterday with a razor (and used dish soap as shampoo to ensure NOTHING was in my hair) and whaddaya know, my hair scraped off!
In response to the comment by Rosa, I strongly disagree that this post is offensive as you say. How so? The poster could have posted more information, because what she provies is all the brains have to go on. They are offensive because they didn’t poke and prod when she herself could and should have given all the info? Doesn’t make much sense to me. They’re not even saying she’s wrong.
Bottom line, they say it’s not logical to conclude based on her current assumptions that it’s Pantene that’s the problem. I quote “That’s certainly a possibility but there are others. ”
and the last paragraph
“The observations she’s made are not adequate to determine that Pantene is responsible. It could be, but we’d need to learn more about the composition of the white flakes. If they turn out to be 100% protein, Pantene is obviously not the most likely culprit. Only eliminate possible explanations when data shows them to be wrong. And don’t assume you know the answer without testing it.”
They’re not saying flat out that it’s NOT Pantene, but that her thought process isn’t as clear as it should be before determining it’s Pantene that’s the problem.
Rosa Says:
Jessica - That’s exactly why this could be offensive. So yes, “The observations she’s made are not adequate to determine that Pantene is responsible.” But maybe she was thinking more and just put a short anecdote including her conclusion because she wasn’t expecting her idea to be broken down piece by piece? How do the Beauty Brains know what ‘observations she’s made’? They know what observations she’s POSTED but maybe she hasn’t elaborated.
I wouldn’t want to have to explain every piece of my train of thought every time I wanted to share some information and so that’s why I don’t like their way of singling out this person in this post whether they are right or wrong.
Rosa Says:
they b
Rosa Says:
Oops ‘they’ being this person, not the beauty brains. Probably a she.
Agh sorry my internet is funky which is why that other comment showed up.
Left Brain Says:
Rosa,
We didn’t dismiss her logic. In fact, we said she was logical. We also didn’t mean to offend. Her comments just provided a good illustration of faulty thinking that could lead to erroneous conclusions.
The most likely conclusion based on our expert opinion is that it is hair protein or styling product. But we didn’t say that was the answer. It could be Pantene. It’s just not likely.
To think scientifically, you have to explain every bit of your train of thought, especially when you are making a conclusion like “Pantene made my hair do this.” It’s up to the person making definitive claims to prove them. People should not just believe what someone writes just because they say it. They should require proof. They should question every angle. They should examine all the different possibilities they can think of. Just stopping at your first idea is lazy thinking that leads people to believe things that aren’t true.
Janis Says:
Rosa, if she’d made those sorts of observations, she would have been careful to say them, I think. People who are methodical about their thinking tend to communicate methodically as well.
It’s not good science either to respond to questions with, “Well, how do you know I didn’t do that?” The proper way to respond is to either give your harder data or say, “I didn’t investigate that. Let me go do so and report back.”
They’re simply saying that she didn’t make enough observations or didn’t communicate the ones she made adequately to draw the conclusion she drew. Science is a back and forth thing; the ball’s always in the experimenter’s court. She can always respond with more of what she knows and allow that to be subject to scrutiny, or go off and try making more rigorous observations and report that back as well.
They’re not putting her in front of a firing squad; they’re just asking for a more info.
Jan74 Says:
Fact: All the stuff that makes your hair feel silky and protects it against environmental damage, like ‘cones, proteins, and SPF in hair products will eventually make your hair feel a bit heavy and weighed down.
But the solution here is NOT to buy expensive shampoos in which their ‘cones will magically not build up on your hair - they are the same substances. It is just to use a clarifying shampoo once in a while. Doesn’t have to be a fancy one dubbed clarifying shampoo either - just any shampoo without silicones and proteins. Johnson’s Baby Shampoo or most other baby shampoos will do the job. Once your hair starts feeling heavy, wash it with that once. Problem solved!
I do think Janis’s “special snowflake” theory probably accounts for most of this.
Janis Says:
Jan74, ITA. I think the solution is also to use these products sparingly. People can tend to think that if a little of something is good, then piling it on must be great. You really don’t need a ton of silicones to get the best results from them, and if you get good results with a little bit once in a while, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you’ll get better results using a ton of it every day.
I feel silly saying this, but I think a lot of people just don’t know how to use these products — and the manufacturers and stylists are often no help. They want you to buy as much as possible, so they’ll tell you to use it every day, which is just way too much.
People also have to realize that no matter which or how much product you use, you will not have Angelina Jolie’s hair. She has her hair, you have yours. (And chances are that she doesn’t even have what we think of as her hair, that it only looks like that because she has seventeen people making a healthy salary to do nothing but make her look great.)
I’m also a firm believer that handling matters a LOT more than product in how healthy your hair is. I can slather as much goop in it as I want, but if I wear it down and let it get grond up between my back and my office chair and the seat of my car every single day, it’s gonna look like dried-out hay no matter what. *shrug*
Rosa Says:
Left brain,
I agree that “Her comments just provided a good illustration of faulty thinking that could lead to erroneous conclusions.” But the problem I have with this post is that when she decided to make a comment, she wasn’t (probably) expecting to be made an example. Your point would have been illustrated just as well with an hypothetical situation and so my beef is with the fact that you used a comment from a visitor to prove a point. (And yes, even if you did point out she was logical, you pointed out that she has a ‘thinking problem’ and not that she might just not have explained herself fully).
Janis-
“People who are methodical about their thinking tend to communicate methodically as well.”
Okay, I see how that could be true. But although I consider myself to be methodical, reading beauty blogs for me is a way to relax and sometimes share my thoughts, not another place where I have to write a complete essay to back up everything I say. The girl, whoever she is, just wanted to share something that happened to her and I personally think that she shouldn’t have to write with the same standards she might use when she writes for class or has to explain something to her boss, etc. If she was writing a news article about how Pantene is bad, I would completely agree with you that she wasn’t being a good writer/thinker/whatever. But as this is a completely informal place to share your thoughts, I don’t think this should be necessary. I’m not saying that she’s right or wrong, or that she necessarily DID think the problem out fully. I’m just trying to say that making an example of comments left on a blog is not a good way to do things because the sort of ’standards’ that are important for commenting on blogs is much different that the standards anybody would hold his/herself to when actually trying to argue a point. I hope you agree with me on this but I suppose all of this could be my personal opinion.
Baseless Base Tan Balony | The Beauty Brains Says:
[...] be better protected from the sun. But as we showed previously, just because something is logical doesn’t mean it’s true. Unfortunately, logic fails here because the base tan protection theory just doesn’t hold up [...]
Baseless Base Tan Balony | Beauty Secrets Blog Says:
[...] you’ll be better protected from the sun. But as we showed previously, just because something is logical doesn’t mean it’s true. Unfortunately, logic fails here because the base tan protection theory just doesn’t hold up when [...]
Tanning Bed before Outdoor Tanning - MakeupTalk Says:
[...] you?ll be better protected from the sun. But as we showed previously, just because something is logical doesn?t mean it?s true. Unfortunately, logic fails here because the base tan protection theory just doesn?t hold up when [...]
Ali Says:
Thanks for the article. The fluff about Pantene has always annoyed me. My hair stylist always talks about the buildup supposedly caused by Pantene, but my hair had “buildup” from her Aveda products too. I switched back to Pantene in between appointments, and when she saw me again, she exclaimed, “Wow! Your hair looks great! What have you been using?” Um… Pantene…
Additionally, no one can ever tell me why “buildup” is a bad thing? Is it supposedly harmful? If your hair looks and feels fabulous, then why would it matter?
As to the logical/scientific sentiment of the article — you are absolutely correct — anecdotes do not count as scientific evidence, and correlation does not indicate causation. If it did, we would still be burning witches at the stake.